All Episodes
Previous Next
April 4, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
50:44
Trouble At YouTube | Ep. 510
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We discussed what we know about the YouTube shooting.
Robert Mueller announces that President Trump is not a criminal target.
And President Trump says he's going to put the military on the border.
We'll discuss all of it.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
All right, so we do have a lot to get to today.
We're going to go through in fulsome detail everything that we know about the YouTube shooter, about the attempted murderer over at YouTube who shot herself after wounding several people.
We're not going to mention her name because that's something that we don't do here on The Ben Shapiro Show.
We also don't do it at Daily Wire.
That's an edict that I put down after the Parkland shooting where we do not cover the actual name of the shooter.
So if you want the name of the shooter, you'll have to go elsewhere.
I don't think it's that important.
We'll give you all the information you need to know about her without actually naming her and glorifying her in the way that the media are doing.
We know from studies that it is important not to mention the names of shooters if you want to stop copycat crimes.
We'll discuss all of those things in just a second.
First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Legacy Box.
So here's the deal.
Right now, in your garage, you have a bunch of old films, old pictures, old cassette tapes.
cassette tapes.
You have all this stuff, and it's just moldering away.
You have all this stuff, and it's just moldering away.
It's degrading.
It's degrading.
Over time, it's going to be unplayable, unusable.
Over time, it's going to be unplayable, unusable.
It's going to get waterlogged.
It's going to get waterlogged.
There will be bugs that get in it.
There will be bugs that get in it.
Well, instead of just letting that stuff degrade in your garage, instead what you should do is go to my friends over at LegacyBox and let them help you out.
The way this works is you take all of those tapes, you take all those pictures, everything.
You throw it in a box, and you send it to LegacyBox.
Okay, LegacyBox sends you a box.
You take all of these things, the old films, the tapes, the pictures, the audio recordings, you send it back, and then in a couple of weeks, all of it comes back to you, original materials, plus a DVD or thumb drive with all of this stuff So you can relive, rewatch, enjoy it all the time.
I've done this for my parents.
It is a fantastic gift for your parents.
It's a fantastic gift for yourself if you're trying to maintain your childhood memories without those things withering away.
There's a reason over 350,000 families have used LegacyBox.
And for a limited time, when you go to LegacyBox.com slash Ben, you get a 40% discount on your order.
That's LegacyBox.com slash Ben for that 40% discount.
Again, LegacyBox.com slash Ben.
Use that slash Ben so they know that we sent you.
Again, fantastic service.
Nothing more important in life than preserving those memories you've created.
If you let them moulder away, it's going to be your own fault.
So go to LegacyBox.com slash Ben and get that 40% discount on your order.
Alright, so...
Yesterday, in the middle of the day, a woman walked into the YouTube headquarters in Northern California and began shooting up the place.
We are not going to mention her name, as I say, because here at The Daily Warrior and on my podcast in particular, I have a policy.
My policy is that we don't mention the names of attempted mass shooters because studies tend to show that when you glorify mass shooters, All that does is create copycats.
People want to think that their message is getting out there.
So what we will discuss is everything we know about this woman without actually mentioning her specific name.
Just what you need to know as news consumers.
So according to Mercury News in San Jose, the night before this woman opened fire in a courtyard at YouTube's headquarters Tuesday afternoon, Mountain View Police found this woman sleeping in her car.
She'd been reported missing by her family in Southern California, and her father told police she might be going to YouTube because she hated the company.
Okay, so here's what we know already.
She's crazy.
She hates YouTube.
She put up a bunch of videos on YouTube about being demonetized.
She's an animal rights protester with an Islamic background.
Her dad is Muslim, I guess.
All I can say is that her videos make it fairly clear that she is not an Orthodox, observant Muslim.
She's dressed in garb that I don't think traditional Muslims would be particularly happy with.
There are a bunch of videos of her doing exercise videos.
And she was demonetized.
She had about 55,000 followers on Instagram, I guess is the latest.
She had a few followers on YouTube, and YouTube cracked down on some of her videos, and she was very angry at YouTube for that, and so her dad called the cops and said she might be going to YouTube.
The cops obviously did nothing, so just like in Parkland, the cops were called over and over and over.
There was no follow-up, and this person obviously was unwell.
Okay, I'm not going to sit here and diagnose this person with anything, but a person who creates these kind of videos, there's a screw loose, okay?
Just in conventional terminology, this woman had a screw loose.
After this guy, the father, called the police, the police called the family at 2 a.m.
Tuesday to say that this woman had been found and that everything was under control.
But hours later, this woman was dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound after shooting three people and causing an afternoon of terror at YouTube's headquarters.
In an interview Tuesday night with the Bay Area News Group, this woman's father said his 38-year-old daughter told her family a couple of weeks ago that YouTube had been censoring her videos and stopped paying her for her content.
She was angry, he said in an interview.
It wasn't clear Tuesday night what Mountain View Police knew about her history with YouTube.
A police spokeswoman confirmed that officers had found a woman of the same name asleep in a vehicle early Tuesday morning in a parking lot, and the officers made contact with the woman after the license plate of her vehicle matched that of a missing person.
Out of SoCal, the woman confirmed her identity and answered subsequent questions.
At the conclusion of their discussion, her family was notified that she had been located.
So according to her dad, his daughter was a vegan activist and animal lover.
As a youngster, she would not even kill ants that invaded the family home, instead using paper to remove them to the backyard.
State records show she had once established a charity called Peace Thunder Inc., which Sounds fantastic.
And she made weird YouTube videos.
And these videos are really weird.
And again, I'm not going to show you the YouTube videos because I don't think future shooters should have it in their mind that the media are going to give them the sort of coverage they seek if they go and shoot people.
So according to this woman, she was actually quoted by the San Diego Union Tribune at a PETA rally in 2009 outside Camp Pendleton, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
And she said, for me, animal rights equal human rights.
She told her family that YouTube had stopped paying her for the content she posted to the site.
YouTubers, of course, can receive payments if their videos have been monetized.
She was prolific on social media.
She posted videos and photos on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube.
It's very weird.
There's strange workout video clips.
But a bunch of her latest posts show evidence of her growing frustration.
Apparently, all of her pages were taken down late on Tuesday.
But, for example, in a March 18th Instagram post, she railed at YouTube, quote, This also happened to many other channels on YouTube.
This is the peaceful tactic used on the internet to censor and suppress people who speak the truth and are not good for the financial, political gains of the system and big businesses.
I recently got filter on Instagram too and maybe it's related to YouTube and YouTube staff asked Instagram to filter me here too and then she recorded a video on January 28th where she was complaining about her perceived discrimination by YouTube.
She said, I'm being discriminated and filtered on YouTube and I'm not the only one.
They restricted my ab workout video, a video that has nothing bad in it, nothing sexual.
She has at least four YouTube channels, one in English and then others in Farsi and Turkish as well.
So, the original story that was coming out of the police department is that this was a woman who was angry at an ex-boyfriend, and so she went into YouTube and started shooting up the place.
It is now clear, or at least becoming clear, that there's not a lot of evidence for this, that it seems more likely that she had a vendetta against YouTube and she decided to just go and start shooting.
The family apparently came to California from Iran in 1996, And apparently, this woman was living with her grandmother, and she was always complaining that YouTube ruined her life.
So, apparently, nobody knows where she got the gun.
It was not a rifle, I believe.
I believe that this was a handgun.
And that's what we know about this woman.
She would have turned 40 in two days, and again, she had problems.
It's very clear this is a woman who is mentally ill, right?
And she said in one video, quote, Your knowledge is their enemy.
This is what she said about YouTube.
Her family said she'd been making a living as a YouTube personality.
So, here's what comes out of this.
First of all, the entire left, as soon as the shooting went down, said, OK, this obviously means we must have gun control.
Because when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Every single thing looks like a nail.
And in this particular case, the hammer doesn't fit the nail, because it's pretty obvious that this woman had serious problems.
It's not clear where she got the gun yet.
We don't know the answer.
Depriving me of a gun would not have deprived this woman of a gun.
At least we don't know that a blanket gun confiscation would have done that.
This doesn't appear to have been an AR, and so this isn't going to be top-line news for the media for much longer than 24 hours.
It would have been top-line news if this had been an NRA activist.
It would have been top-line news if this had been a devotee of The Ben Shapiro Show.
But since this person is a weird person with mental illness and left-wing leanings, And a Muslim background, that means that this is not going to be news beyond, you know, the next five minutes.
The media is going to bury this one.
We'll get right back to Parkland, which has a nice narrative that the media can glom onto, ignoring, of course, all the facts about what happened in Parkland, where the FBI ignored warnings and the local police ignored warnings, and then the shooting happened anyway.
So, look for this shooting to hit the back pages in about five seconds flat.
Again, because it doesn't promote the agenda that folks want it to promote.
The entire left decided that they were going to jump immediately on this as it was happening.
And this is one of the problems with social media, places like Facebook and YouTube and Twitter, is that people react immediately to all of this stuff as soon as it happens.
Right?
As soon as it happens, people are reacting without reference to reality.
So, Michael Ian Black is already tweeting he wants to take away all the guns.
The comedian is tweeting that he wants to take away everybody's guns.
He's coming for our guns.
Why?
Do we even have the facts?
No.
We don't have the facts, but the narrative must be purveyed at all costs.
And then folks on the right are saying, well, Maybe this woman was a religious Muslim.
Maybe it's a terrorist attack, based on the initial report that it was a woman in a headscarf who walked in.
So nobody actually waits for the facts to come out.
It's important to wait for the facts to come out, because if you don't wait for the facts to come out, you screw things up.
And in this particular case, the facts demonstrate that, once again, we had a mentally ill person who was basically being ignored by the cops, and the cops didn't do what they were supposed to.
Every red flag was there.
She was The police were told that she had a vendetta against YouTube.
Now, the other thing that you may see in the coming days is the media tried to turn this into a defense of YouTube's policies.
Suggesting, for example, that this woman was egged on by people who were angry at YouTube and angry at social media.
That she was angered because there were so many people, on the right particularly, who talk about the problems with demonetization of video.
Now, in order to get to that point, they would have to ignore the fact that this woman was, in fact, left-wing.
I mean, she was rallying with people for the ethical treatment of animals.
But that wouldn't stop the left before.
The reality is that every time there's a shooting, the left immediately swivels and tries to blame it on the right.
This goes all the way back to the JFK assassination, when the New York Times attempted to blame right-wingers for the JFK assassination, even though JFK was assassinated by a communist.
Who may or may not have been in contact with the Cuban government.
They tried to blame it on the right.
They suggested it was America's collective guilt.
You may see that emerge in the aftermath of the shooting.
But now you know what you need to know about the shooter.
And again, it's pretty clear this does not fit into the narrative that the left would like from all of this.
Now, what would have stopped something like this?
Presumably a gun violence restraining order if she obtained her weapon legally.
So some of the stuff that Marco Rubio is pushing and some of the stuff that's been pushed by David French over at National Review.
The policy that suggests that family and friends could have gone to a judge and said this woman should not have guns because she's a danger to herself or others.
That would have stopped her from getting a gun.
What else would have helped?
Well, if the police had followed up and ensured that this woman did not have guns after it turns out that she was sleeping in her car and ranting about YouTube.
One of the big problems that we have in American society with regard to the treatment of mental illness is we act as though a person who rants crazy things and lives in their car is just exercising normal American freedoms.
You don't have the freedom to sleep in your car in public areas.
And you don't have the freedom to be deeply mentally in danger to yourself or others.
And the ACLU has made a cause, a crusade, out of ensuring that, for example, homeless people get to sleep on the streets of Los Angeles.
This person was not homeless, presumably.
She was living with her parents.
But she clearly had some problems.
And when there are problems like this, again, Jared Loeffner, the shooter in the Gabby Giffords situation, the shooter in Aurora, Colorado, the shooter in Sandy Hook, the shooter in Parkland.
All of these people had serious mental health issues, serious mental health problems.
Virginia Tech.
And there were warning signs and people didn't do what they were supposed to do.
In just a second, I'm going to get to the other big story of the day, and that, of course, is regarding President Trump and whether he is a target of criminal investigation.
Robert Mueller comes up with some interesting analysis.
But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at PolicyGenius.
So, 71% of people say they need life insurance, but only 59% of people have coverage.
So, that's a pretty solid discrepancy.
A lot of people who say they want life insurance haven't bothered to go get the coverage.
So 12% of people are just procrastinating.
They're just sitting around.
They're not doing what they're supposed to do.
And while you're procrastinating, policy genius is making life insurance easier.
So now is the time for you to go get your life insurance.
Okay?
Just do it now before you die, because once you die, it's too late to do it, and then your family's screwed.
So, you need policy genius.
It's the easy way to compare life insurance online.
You can compare quotes in just five minutes.
When it's that easy, putting it off becomes a lot harder.
So you can compare those quotes.
You can sit on the couch, watch TV.
You can compare quotes while listening to this podcast.
Policy Genius has helped over 4 million people shop for insurance and placed over $20 billion in coverage.
And they don't just do life insurance.
They do disability insurance, renter's insurance, health insurance.
If you care enough about it.
And if you care enough about something to insure it, PolicyGenius probably has a program for you.
So, right now, go over to PolicyGenius.com.
That's PolicyGenius.com.
The easy way to compare top insurers and find the best value for you.
No sales pressure.
Zero hassle.
When you compare prices, you save money.
PolicyGenius.com.
When it's this easy, why not just do it right now?
Go over there.
Head over there.
PolicyGenius.com.
Okay, so meanwhile, the other big news of the day yesterday.
I'm still confused as to how we're actually supposed to pronounce his name.
So for the sake of argument, we will say Mueller right now.
But Robert Mueller, who is the special investigator who was tasked by the DOJ with checking into supposed Trump-Russia collusion in the last election cycle, he has now come out with some information and suggested that President Trump is not in fact a target of the investigation.
When the rest of the left, the entire left, is now doing Bill Paxton from Aliens.
Game over, man.
Game over.
They can't believe that Robert Mueller isn't going to come in, deus ex machina, and oust President Trump from office with some sort of criminal indictment.
Here's what The Washington Post reported that blew up the internet last night.
Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed President Trump's attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president, but does not consider him a criminal target at this point, according to three people familiar with the discussions.
In private negotiations in early March about a possible presidential interview, Mueller described Trump as a subject of his investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.
Prosecutors view someone as a subject when that person has engaged in conduct that is under investigation, but there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges.
The special counsel also told Trump's lawyer that he is preparing a report about the president's actions while in office and potential obstruction of justice, according to two people with knowledge of the conversations.
Mueller reiterated the need to interview Trump, both to understand whether he had any corrupt intent to thwart the Russia investigation and to complete this portion of his probe that people said.
Mueller's description of the president's status has sparked friction within Trump's inner circle as his advisors have debated his legal standing.
So the president, some of his allies, they apparently are seizing on Mueller's words as an assurance that Trump's risk of criminal jeopardy is low.
But other advisors say, well, a subject can quickly become an indicted target.
So there are a couple of questions here.
And some good news for Trump and some bad news for Trump in this report from The Washington Post about what Robert Mueller is labeling Trump, a target, a subject, but not a target of the investigation.
So point number one, After a year of investigation, more than a year of investigation by the DOJ, and about nine months of investigation by Team Mueller, there is no evidence to indict Trump at this point.
There isn't.
So all of the talk about how Trump is on the ropes, and Trump is going to be ousted from office in a criminal investigation, there is not evidence at this point, which means that the only evidence that Mueller can get is from Trump himself.
And this brings us Right here, this brings us to some of the bad news for President Trump.
When Mueller says that President Trump is a target of the, a subject, but not a target of the investigation, what he means is that he's still looking at everything Trump is doing, but he doesn't have enough information to indict.
That could change.
And so what he could be doing here is making Trump feel comfortable.
He could be saying to him, you know, Mr. President, look, I don't have the evidence to indict you right now.
I have no interest, really, in indicting you.
But I need to talk with you to clarify.
Trump would be a fool to get in a room with Robert Mueller and testify under oath.
He would be—or even to talk to the FBI, generally, because it's still a crime to lie to the FBI, even if you're not under oath.
The reason is this.
Let's say that right now, one of the things we know is that Mueller is doing two things.
One is the possible criminal investigation against Trump for obstruction of justice.
Now, as I've discussed on the program before, the case for obstruction against President Trump is particularly weak.
It's very difficult for the president of the United States to obstruct justice when he's just firing members of the executive branch.
The president has tremendous control over the executive branch and firing anybody inside the executive branch, it's difficult to claim that there would actually be a solid case against President Trump.
So I've done this before, but I'm gonna do it again.
Let me explain to you what obstruction of justice constitutes under federal law.
So under 18 U.S.
Code 1503, it's called the Omnibus Clause.
Okay, it covers corruptly or by any threatening letter or communication, influencing or impeding or endeavoring to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of justice.
But the clause requires a pending judicial proceeding.
There is no pending judicial proceeding right now.
If there were a pending judicial proceeding, if, for example, Trump fired James Comey in order to protect Michael Flynn, then that would be one thing.
But if he fired James Comey just because he got mad, or if he fired James Comey because he didn't want James Comey investigating him, then that would all be actually perfectly legal under this clause.
It's only if there's a pending judicial proceeding and the president interferes with that pending judicial proceeding By firing someone, maybe, that you could theoretically say that's obstruction.
Very difficult to make that case when the president obviously has the right to fire someone like James Comey, the former FBI director, who was underneath his rule, right?
Under his purview in the executive branch.
Okay, another clause of federal law that's often used when you're talking about obstruction is 18 U.S.
Code 1512c.
This provision of law covers anyone who, quote, obstructs, influences, or impedes an official proceeding or attempts to do so.
So it's not clear that an FBI investigation is an official proceeding.
And more than that, you have to prove intent.
So you have to prove that President Trump actually intended to obstruct the investigation.
He wasn't just pissed at James Comey.
I think, realistically speaking, that's exactly why he fired James Comey, the former FBI director.
He was angry at him because he went to Comey.
He said, why don't you just say I'm not under investigation?
And Comey said, I don't want to say that.
And Trump said, but I'm not, am I?
And Comey said, right, you're not under investigation.
Trump said, well, why don't you say that?
And Comey said, I don't want to, and Trump fired him.
I mean, really, I think that's how things went down.
Final piece of the US code that deals with obstruction of justice.
This provision covers destroying evidence related to a federal investigation.
It's 18 U.S.
Code 1519.
There are no accusations at this point that Trump has destroyed evidence of any kind.
So, again, very difficult to make a criminal case on obstruction of justice against the President of the United States.
However, even if Trump talks to Mueller, and then he says something like, Yeah, I fired Comey because I didn't like what he was doing with Flynn.
Boom.
Now you're talking about a possible obstruction of justice charge.
It would be difficult to prove in court.
It would be really out of the box for the President of the United States to be actually charged with obstruction of justice.
Obstruction of justice was part of the impeachment proceeding, however, against Richard Nixon.
And this brings us to the second point with regard to what Mueller is doing.
So what Mueller is doing here, right, is he is compiling a report to issue to Congress.
That seems to me perfectly appropriate, considering that this is basically a political issue, but I'm not sure that it was inside Mueller's purview in the first place.
Now, Alan Dershowitz, who's a defense lawyer, obviously a Harvard Law School professor, he has suggested that Mueller is operating outside his purview.
His purview is not to issue reports to Congress.
His purview is not to issue intelligence or counterintelligence reports.
His issue is to do a criminal investigation.
Either he's got the goods or he doesn't.
If he doesn't have the goods, then he should shut up.
That's Dershowitz's basic point here, is that every special counsel investigation is set, has set parameters, and Mueller has exceeded those parameters.
Other people who believe this, Andy McCarthy over at National Review has made the same case, that Mueller's parameters have expanded and expanded and expanded, so now we're no longer talking about Trump-Russia collusion anywhere in here, right?
Trump-Russia collusion has nothing to do with anything.
Instead, we are now talking about something completely different, possible obstruction of justice by President Trump.
But this is a problem for President Trump.
Because, remember, there's an election coming up in 2018.
And in just a second, I'm going to explain to you why Mueller's little report to Congress could be pretty devastating for President Trump.
Just another reason why Trump probably should not talk to Mueller.
I'll explain that in just a second.
First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Blinds.com.
So Blinds.com is The place that you need to go if you are interested in ensuring that your house doesn't look like a trash heap, okay?
One of the things that you never look at, one of the things that you never pay attention to, is the blinds on your windows.
You just don't.
They look like garbage, they look terrible, but the reality is that you need to pay attention to those blinds because the window coverings in your house actually make a pretty large difference.
We just had some of our blinds replaced by blinds.com and everything looks a lot better.
And Blinds.com makes it really easy for you.
So you don't have to go to a store, you don't have to shop around, you don't have to have someone come to your house.
Instead, you go to Blinds.com, and if you're not sure what you want or even where to start with Blinds.com, you get a free online design consultation.
You send them pictures of your house, and they send back custom recommendations from a professional for what will work with your color scheme, furniture, and specific rooms.
They'll even send you free samples to make sure everything looks as good in person as it does online.
Every single order gets free shipping, and here's the best part.
You screw it up, it's your fault.
You mismeasure, you pick the wrong color.
If you screw it up, Blinds.com remakes your blinds for free.
They made it really easy for you.
For a limited time, you get right now 20% off everything at Blinds.com when you use promo code BEN.
So make sure you use promo code BEN to get 20% off everything at Blinds.com.
We're talking faux wood blinds, cellular shades, roller shades, and more.
Blinds.com promo code BEN.
Rules and restrictions do apply.
Blinds.com, promo code Ben.
Make your house look fantastic.
Blinds.com, promo code Ben.
And again, when you use promo code Ben, you let them know that we sent you, and you get 20% off all of the things.
So, that's a pretty awesome deal.
Check it out.
Blinds.com, promo code Ben.
Okay, so, back to the Mueller investigation.
So, as we say, According to the Washington Post, Mueller is drafting a large report that he's going to issue to Congress.
And this, of course, will be a bombshell no matter what it says.
If Mueller says, you know, Trump acted improperly, but it's not criminal, Then, if Democrats win back Congress, they will attempt to impeach him.
So, here is why 2018 matters for Republicans if they don't want to see Trump impeached in the House.
Now, the chances that he's impeached in the Senate are virtually nil.
But, he could be, or convicted in the Senate, anyway, he could be impeached in the House if Democrats win back the Congress.
And right now, the polls suggest that they are very likely to win back Congress.
Which means, let's say Mueller issues this report a few months down the road.
Let's say he issues it in December.
Let's say he issues it in September.
And this becomes an issue.
If he issues it before the election, Democrats will use this as, elect us and we will impeach Trump.
Right?
Hope will spring alive anew for Democrats and the turnout will be even greater than it otherwise would be because they will now have the grounds to go after President Trump.
If he does it after the election and Democrats run the House, then there will presumably be some sort of impeachment proceeding because all they need is the drop of a hat and they're going to move to impeach Trump just because they don't like Trump.
Doesn't matter.
that we've been hearing nothing about collusion.
Doesn't matter.
The collusion was the buzzword for literally a year and a half here.
None of that matters.
They'll talk about obstruction, obstruction.
Sure, there was no collusion, but there was obstruction, and the president was acting in criminal fashion, and that means we have to impeach him.
So, this is why Trump should not talk to Mueller, because if he talks to Mueller, is there any doubt that if you're Trump's lawyer, you're just gritting your teeth the entire time?
If you're Trump's lawyer, President Trump has an unfortunate habit of making loud, brash statements.
You can't do that in front of lawyers.
You do that in front of Mueller, and Mueller will catch you in a perjury trap faster than you can say boo.
So there you actually do have criminal liability, right?
There you actually have a problem.
If Trump actually lies to the FBI, then you have a crime.
But even if he doesn't lie to the FBI, if he provides any evidence that allows Mueller to suggest obstruction that's not quite criminal, but is uncomfortable and weird, then you could see Democrats move to impeach President Trump.
And that, of course, is the end goal of so many of these folks.
This investigation is still dangerous.
Now, does that mean that Trump should fire Mueller?
No, because then there would presumably be an impeachment proceeding against Trump by the House anyway for obstruction.
But at least we can fight back if the Mueller report proves to be particularly weak.
Everybody who's jumping to conclusions, suggesting that Trump is off the hook now, that's not right.
Everybody who's suggesting that this shows that Trump is on the hook, that's not right either.
We don't have enough information.
Trump needs to be protecting himself.
And if Trump believes that this is going to let him off the hook, that everything's going to be fine, This is now in the political court.
Okay, this is no longer in the legal court.
It probably won't be in a legal court.
It will be in the political court.
And that could be a serious problem for President Trump.
Although, I will say this.
If the Democrats try to impeach Trump in 2018, and he doesn't get convicted in the Senate, and he remains in office, How big is turnout going to be for Republicans in 2020?
Nothing was better for Bill Clinton than Republicans attempting to impeach him in 1998.
His approval rating skyrocketed to 60%.
So I think the same thing will happen with Trump?
No, because I think Trump is a more polarizing figure on the American public scene, or at least people react to him in a more polarized way.
If Democrats try to impeach him on weak grounds, that would be a political mistake that could really hurt them in the re-elect effort in 2020.
Okay, so meanwhile, the President of the United States, President Trump, has now decided that he wants to put the military on our southern border and Democrats are losing their minds.
Here's President Trump announcing that he wants to put the military on the border yesterday.
And we are going to be doing some things.
I've been speaking with General Mattis.
We're going to be doing things militarily.
Until we can have a wall and proper security, we're going to be guarding our border with the military.
OK, so the left went nuts over this.
So he says, listen, if we don't have proper security, we should be guarding our border with the military.
He says we'll use the National Guard for all of this.
I think this is a fine move.
I have no problem whatsoever with the president putting the National Guard on the border.
This is what he was elected to do.
He was elected to solidify that border.
And it's amazing to me that so many members of the left are truly upset about all of this.
What do they think ICE is?
ICE is a federal armed force that is on the border.
This is just supplementing that federal armed force with members of the National Guard.
And right now, there is a serious problem with not just illegal immigration, but flow of drugs and crime across that southern border.
Even the Mexican ambassador came out yesterday and said that they understand President Trump's concerns, that this isn't completely ridiculous.
Important.
We certainly understand the concern not only that President Trump has, but people in the United States here have about immigration.
OK, so even the Mexican ambassador, I think, is making some noises that are correct here.
The Mexican government has facilitated illegal immigration.
This is true.
The Mexican government benefits from remittances from people who cross the border illegally into America and then send money back to their family back in Mexico.
They have an interest in those sort of cross-border monetary transfers that have been happening into Mexico.
And that's why Mexico is not anti-illegal immigration, even though they are anti-illegal immigration into Mexico.
But there's a deeper question at issue here.
First of all, I just want to point this out.
The reality is that illegal immigration does carry with it serious risks, not just in terms of crime, but also in terms of the heroin epidemic.
There's a great book called Dreamland by Sam Quinonez.
I've recommended it on the show before in the things that I like.
And one of the things that the book talks about is the fact that the heroin epidemic that's been taking place has largely been pushed by black tar heroin traffickers out of a small town called Elisco in the state of Nayarit in Mexico.
They take drugs, they look for new markets, and they've set up an entire distribution system all throughout the United States.
So, according to Quinones, Mexican drug cartels use customer service.
They deliver just like pizza delivery, and it really appeals to this new class of addicts who are white, really kind of unfamiliar, maybe a lot of times, with the drug world.
They don't want to get involved in skid row or housing projects where everyone has always bought dope.
A drug addict wants one thing above all, and that's reliability, and these guys provided that above all.
They relied on being very low profile.
They didn't spend their money lavishly.
They look like the day workers outside your Home Depot.
They drove old cars.
They never used gunplay, drive-by shootings, or any of that kind of stuff because they didn't need to.
According to Quinones, All these guys don't like selling heroin, but here's the thing.
Back in the town where they're from, they've been humiliated all their lives.
Their jobs are dead-end jobs.
They work as bakers.
They work as farm boys.
They work as butchers.
They don't have anything pushing them ahead.
And as the business model began to take hold in Jalisco, Mexico, the effects were immediately seen in the town.
People began to do better.
They began to build big houses.
They began to have nice trucks, nice cars.
All around them, young men saw this.
And they saw that this was a route to real economic progress.
One of the strangest things I encountered when I was doing this book was how Levi's 501s were these huge forces in pushing the system across the United States.
They're these very well-made, very expensive jeans.
And the system was a system for turning cheap heroin into stacks of Levi 501s.
Because dealers noticed that addicts they were selling to were fantastic shoplifters.
So, I mean, there's a whole system here.
The book is really phenomenal and really, I think, a must-read.
They talk about the fact that this entire Mexican drug cartel invaded the United States, and when people are about to be arrested and deported, those people are deported back to the United States.
They just send people right across the border, new people right across the border.
Trump is not wrong to use the military on the border in order to secure that border.
But in a second, I'm going to explain to you something amazing, and that is why the left is so all-fired enamored, really enamored, with the idea of keeping the border open.
And I have a couple of clips to show you and clips to talk about on that.
But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Chappaquiddick.
So as I say, if they had not sponsored Chappaquiddick to be on the program, I would still be talking about Chappaquiddick.
That's how good the movie is.
It is a must-watch.
You should go see Chappaquiddick.
It is coming out on April 6th.
So just two days from now, you can see it.
I've already seen the film.
The film is tremendous.
Not only is it well acted, not only is it beautifully shot, not only is it beautifully written, but it really tells a story about one of the worst crime covers up in the history of the United States.
That is Ted Kennedy leaving Mary Jo Coppock to drown in about six feet of water.
She actually died suffocating in an air bubble at the top of the car.
So it wasn't that he left her and she was already drowned.
She was alive in the car when he left her.
And then he went home, he went to sleep, he woke up the next morning, and only the next morning did he call the cops, by which point she had suffocated to death in the air bubble at the top of the car.
All he had to do was walk about 50 feet to a phone, make a call to the police, and Mary Jo Kopechni would be alive today.
And if he had, by the way, Ted Kennedy probably would be president.
He would have been president.
But Ted Kennedy did not do that.
The movie is fascinating in so many ways, not just because it paints a really realistic picture of what happened at Chappaquiddick, but also Because it took 50 years to even get this on the screen, which is an incredible thing.
Again, imagine the top Republican candidate, top Republican contender, you know, somebody like a George W. Bush figure who left a woman who died at the bottom of a river and then was excused with two months of probation, right?
And two months served was the time served, right?
He didn't serve a day in jail for any of this.
Imagine how quickly that movie would be made by Hollywood.
It went for 50 years without a Hollywood movie being made about this.
But now that movie is out.
And if you're a conservative and you care about the culture and you care about film, you need to go see the movie because you must support films that actually tell the truth, even if they're 50 years late.
Go check it out.
I'm amazed that it was made.
It's really phenomenal.
And it does paint a well-rounded, I think, nuanced picture of Teddy Kennedy at the time and the Kennedy family, which was replete with scumbags and liars.
So go check that out.
Chapel Critic this weekend.
OK, so.
I have a lot more to say about the U.S.
military being used to guard the U.S.-Mexico border, but first, you're gonna have to go over to Daily Wire.
So for $9.99 a month, you get the rest of the Daily Wire shows, you get the rest of my show live, the rest of Clavin's show live, the rest of Michael Mulls' show live, you get all of those things, and then you also get to be part of the conversation.
So our next episode of The Conversation is coming up next Tuesday, April 10th, 5.30 p.m.
Eastern, 2.30 p.m.
Pacific.
It's with my good friend, Andrew Clavin, and my other good friend, Elisha Krauss.
She hosts it, and you ask your questions, and Andrew answers them for a full hour.
It's free for everybody to watch at YouTube or at Facebook, but only subscribers can ask the questions.
So if you want to ask a question, subscribe, log into our website at dailywire.com, and head over to the conversation page to watch the live stream.
And after that, just start typing into the Daily Wire chat box and I'll answer questions.
Drew Will, as they come in for an entire hour.
Once again, subscribe to get your questions answered.
Also subscribe because on Friday we do our mailbag, and then you can get your questions answered by me, the greatest question answerer of the modern era.
You can ask a question directly to moi.
If you subscribe right now, get that annual subscription instead of the monthly for $99 a year.
It's cheaper, and you also get the Tumblr, the Leftist Years Hot or Cold Tumblr that so many Louder With Crowder subscribers are jealous of.
So check that out over at dailywire.com.
Get the subscription.
It always helps us make the show possible, hire all of our hirelings to do slave labor at near slave wages.
So check that out.
Please get the subscription.
We appreciate it.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
So President Trump wants to put National Guardsmen on the border.
Makes perfect sense to me.
I do not see why this is a big problem.
But there are two groups of people who do have a big problem with this.
People who are sort of the normal Democrats and then the radical Democrats.
So we'll start with the normal Democrats.
David Gergen over on CNN has been a longtime Democratic political consultant.
He's angry about this, not because the policy is bad, but because he thinks President Trump is too militaristic.
The most disturbing part of the news to me today was this notion that he wants to now send troops to the border.
It's true that two past presidents have deployed National Guard to the border.
That was because there were pressing needs.
There's no oppressing need here.
This is more of a political move.
And it suggests that the president increasingly sees the military as a play toy that he can make political points with.
First, he wants to have this big, massive parade, which most people in the military look at and say, oh, why are we really doing this?
And the country is shrugging its shoulders, but he's now got the money.
He wanted to take money out of the military budget and pay for the wall.
And now he wants to send troops to the border.
There's no real reason why we need to send troops to the border.
OK, this is ridiculous.
OK, I'm sorry.
This is just ridiculous.
George W. Bush sent a border deployment of the National Guard Does anyone remember?
Operation Jumpstarted in 2006.
It lasted for two full years.
The operation sent more than 6,000 troops to California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas to repair secondary border fence, according to CNN, and construct nearly 1,000 metal barriers and fly border protection agents by helicopter to intercept immigrants trying to enter illegally.
And then another president did this too.
Does anyone remember?
Does anyone remember?
Remember all the way back to 2010 when Barack Obama did this?
Okay, Barack Obama deployed National Guard troops as part of a border protection plan in 2010.
They said up to 1,200 National Guard troops would be in place along the U.S.-Mexico border for up to a year to assist U.S.
Customs and Border Protection.
So Democrats are upset with this because the guy who's doing its name is Trump.
Otherwise, they wouldn't care.
But the suggestion that Trump sees the military as a plaything, and that's why he's doing this?
Trump literally campaigned on solidifying the border.
That's what he campaigned on.
So there is no problem here.
That's absurd.
But there's a deeper problem.
And that is, you know, I was asked yesterday by somebody specifically about this issue.
Why are so many Democrats, why are so many folks on the radical left Interested in open borders.
And I said because there's a group of people who really believe that America bears blood guilt for all of the problems in the rest of the world.
They look at America, they say America's rich, America's powerful.
There are a lot of people all over the world who are poor, who are not powerful.
Lots of countries all over the world where people are suffering.
That's our fault, because we're rich and powerful.
In their view, world politics is a zero-sum game.
Well, just demonstrating this, Tucker Carlson had on last night a fellow who calls himself a border angel.
His name is Enrique Morones.
He is a person who attempts to smuggle people across the border.
He's a founder of the caravan of migrants that was headed to the U.S.
via the U.S.-Mexico border from Central and Latin America.
And here he is with Tucker Carlson explaining why he thinks That it's fine to smuggle people across the border.
And Tucker does a good job with both making the famed Tucker Carlson face, as well as quizzing this guy.
In the United States, interfering in these countries, the demand for the drugs, invading sovereign land like Iraq, or interfering in the civil wars of Central America, that causes people to flee.
The U.S.
should be more welcoming.
Oh, so our sins are the reason this is happening.
So you hate America, is what you're saying.
A very big part of that is the U.S.
sins.
You're blaming America for illegal immigration into America.
Okay, and that is essentially what he's saying.
Tucker does a good job of boiling it down there.
But this guy is saying that America is responsible for sins all over the world, so America should take in all of the refugees from those sins.
So a couple of things that are weird about that.
Number one, if you really think America is such a terrible place filled with such awful people, why do people want to get in?
If a country victimized my country and destroyed my country and made my country a wrecked state, why would I want to live in the country that just wrecked my state?
Why would I want to be a citizen of the country that is apparently just a predatory force around the globe?
That's a weird logical gap.
Maybe just for the materialistic gain, I suppose.
But the other point here is that there is an actual attempt by some members of the radical left to castigate America for our global sins.
Again, the idea being that America is bad and America must be punished.
Too much of America's foreign policy from the left has been based on this.
When Barack Obama did his fabled apology tour all around the Middle East and Europe after he was elected, this was the basic message.
America has sinned in the world, and we are here to rectify those sins.
And if that means that we have to curb our economy with the Paris Accords, cracking down on American economic growth for the sake of chimerical environmental gain, then we will do it.
Everything will be fine because we deserve it.
We deserve it.
It's our fault.
Right?
And if it comes to propping up the UN, one of the most useless and nefarious institutions in the history of modern politics, if we have to do that in order to slap America itself, we'll do that because America is a guilty place filled with guilty people and they have to pay.
Now, this view of the left is a really dangerous one.
And if you're wondering why politics has become so polarized and so, so yelly and so screamy, it's because there's no way to have a rational conversation with people who legitimately believe that the United States has to pay for its past sins and that virtually everything counts as an American sin.
So when President Trump says he's going to put people on the border, I'm all in on that.
I think that's a perfectly rational thing to do.
And I also think that the illegal immigration crisis is not all that hard to solve.
It's just that there are a bunch of people on the left, particularly, who don't want that crisis solved.
They want more illegal immigration because they think that America ought to pay on a moral level.
That's on the radical left.
It's not every Democrat.
There are many other Democrats who don't want to solve the illegal immigration situation because they believe that they're going to be able to get additional Democratic voters as people are made citizens, or they believe that, for example, a bunch of people are going to vote Democrat if they see nasty pictures of Republicans pushing for deportations.
It's political football.
But again, this core group of leftists who believe that America is a bad force in the world, and therefore we must be punished by taking in all sorts of refugees and immigrants, That's dangerous stuff, and there's no way that the United States can survive with that sort of perspective becoming more and more common.
Okay, so now I want to talk about something really weird that happened yesterday.
This is a weird thing that happened yesterday to me.
I have become friendly with a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School whose name is Kyle Kashuv.
He first started becoming prominent when he was speaking out in favor of gun rights, even though he was a witness to what happened at the Parkland High School.
And the entire left basically ignored him.
And so I pointed out to the media that they should stop ignoring survivors who disagreed with them.
And so he started getting booked a little bit more.
And one of the things that has happened in the past couple of days is that there are a bunch of people on the left who have attacked him.
And the reason this is relevant is because, of course, there was this massive boycott launch against Laura Ingraham by the left, suggesting that she had been mean to another Parkland survivor named David Hogg.
David Hogg, of course, had been the kid who'd gone on TV and suggested that everyone who disagreed with him was basically a murderer with blood on their hands, taking NRA blood money.
And Laura Ingraham said that he was whiny about his college admissions, an ill-advised comment, and then there was a boycott against her.
Well, Kyle was attacked in much more nefarious fashion by the left, and no one seems to be commenting on this other than to say that the guy who did it is kind of crazy.
So the guy who did it is a guy named Kurt Eichenwald.
Kurt Eichenwald, on his bio on Twitter, five days ago, it said he was an MSNBC contributor and a Vanity Fair contributing editor, right?
That's what it said.
On his on his biography.
Well, a few days ago, he ripped into Kyle on Twitter.
I pointed this out and MSNBC started losing sponsors.
And so MSNBC came out and they said, well, actually, we would not hired him for since February 20, since February.
He hasn't been able to to really do anything Since February hasn't been with MSNBC.
So, first Kurt had to remove the MSNBC contributor part of his Twitter profile.
So suddenly it just said, Kurt Eichenwald, Vanity Fair contributing editor, New York Times best-selling author.
Then, yesterday, Kurt sent me this wild email.
This wild, wild email.
And here's what it said.
It said, I'm working on an article about you and your relationship with Kyle Kashuv, the kid from Parkland.
I'm not going to be using his name for reasons that will become apparent.
A few items.
One, he's been actively working to trick journalists he believes work for non-Fox television networks into taking any action in something in which his Twitter account was linked.
Two, he's been coordinating with some of the trolls involved with these people.
Three, he in fact coordinated with the other guy with the podcast who was demanding my respect.
He used the same attack on me as the other guy, which was unprovoked.
He used this garbage pushed by conservative media and leftists that I am a fan of tentacle porn.
That's what he actually wrote because about a year ago it turned out that Kurt Eichenwald tweeted out a link accidentally to Tentacle Porn.
I think that was the story.
Or he tweeted out a picture of himself and in the background of his computer was a picture of Tentacle Porn.
Something like that.
And then he said that he was just using it for research purposes or he wanted to show his kids.
He was his kids had said something about tentacle porn.
He didn't believe that it was real.
So he went looking for it.
In any case, this became a point of humor against Kurt Eichenwald.
And this email that he sent to me about Kyle goes on and on and on and on.
I mean, it is a long, long email.
And the best part of it was where he says this.
So remember, all of this started with Kurt Eichenwald saying that the boycott against Laura Ingraham was justified because Laura Ingraham had been mean to a Parkland survivor.
Kyle Cashew is a Parkland survivor.
Here is what Kurt Eichenwald wrote in this email to me that he sent to me, this crazy email, quote, I engaged in a DM conversation with Kyle, which was quite disturbing.
I consulted a friend of mine who is a psychiatrist, a political conservative since that seems so important to you, and based on what he read, the psychiatrist said the following.
One, Kyle is in desperate need of psychiatric help or support.
The psychiatrist did not have enough information to assess if the issues he saw in the conversation were the consequence of the shooting, being psychologically unprepared for being thrust into the conservative media as a go-to kid, or if there's an underlying pathology that preceded these events.
Two, Kyle is obsessed with you.
In fact, our DM conversation with you, which involves a lot of irrational rage, seemed to have been sparked by my asking you to debate.
And then he goes on, and finally, at the very end of this email, he asks a series of questions suggesting that I am running Kyle, that I am the nefarious for, that Kyle doesn't have his own opinions, he wasn't conservative before he met me, that Kyle has been getting his cues from me.
Now listen, I've openly said on the program that I talk with Kyle.
They're like, there's no secret about this.
I think Kyle's a good kid.
I think he's trying to do the right thing.
And I think he deserves support.
In the same way that I'm sure that David Hogg talks with a bunch of folks on the left, including Media Matters.
There's nothing wrong with that.
But the best part of this email is where Kurt says at the very end of it, don't forward this email to Kyle.
He does not need to know what a psychiatrist is saying about him.
You have heard him enough.
So this guy who purported to be a Vanity Fair contributing editor, he sends me an email accusing Kyle Cash of a Parkland survivor of being psychologically deficient, right?
To having a psychiatric problem.
And then says at the end of the email that I am harming him and I shouldn't forward the So naturally, I did what any rational person would do when you receive a crazy email like this.
I immediately posted it on Twitter, the entire text of it.
And Vanity Fair responded by sending out a notice that Kurt Eichenwald no longer works for Vanity Fair, that he hasn't worked for Vanity Fair for several years.
So Kurt's Twitter biography shrunk yet again, and now he was no longer an MSNBC contributor or a Vanity Fair contributing editor.
He actually emailed, I believe it was Brian Stelter at CNN, claiming that, no, he was still a Vanity Fair contributing editor.
And Vanity Fair was like, No, you're not, and you haven't written for us since 2014.
So all of this is to say, listen, I don't want to pick on a guy when he's down, kick a guy when he's down, but all of this is to say that there are people on the left who do attack Parkland survivors, and the blowback on them does not extend to their venues.
It doesn't really extend to their outlets.
It's been largely ignored, right?
Joan Walsh, as we played yesterday, said some nasty things about Kyle Kashuv.
There's been no boycott effort against CNN.
When the left wants to boycott something, they're doing it for political purposes.
The right usually is better than that, and usually doesn't engage in these kind of boycotts, unless it is a reverse boycott, like they're boycotting Chick-fil-A, and we say, okay, we'll all go shop at Chick-fil-A just to show that we're not going to allow you to boycott institutions we like out of business.
It's amazing what the same left that says you can't target a Parkland shooter, can't target, rather, a Parkland survivor, will say that if it's a Parkland survivor we don't like, that we will actually go have them psychologically evaluated without their knowledge, and then say that you should not tell the person that that happened.
It's an amazing thing, and frankly, I think that Kyle has a very solid legal case for defamation against Kurt.
So we'll see how all of that goes, but things certainly are crazy.
Okay, time for a couple of things I like and then a couple of things that I hate.
So, Things that I like.
Since it is the middle of Passover, I would be remiss if I did not play some music from the Prince of Egypt.
I remember when I first saw this movie, as an Orthodox Jew, I found a couple of things a little irritating about it because it's not exactly biblically accurate in a couple of ways.
So, for example, they use the trope that is used, I believe, in the original Ten Commandments as well, that the king of Egypt is the same age as Moses.
That Pharaoh is the same age as Moses.
They're actually brothers.
They're adopted brothers.
Not that Pharaoh was older.
There's not a lot of evidence in the Bible that Pharaoh was, in fact, Moses' adopted brother as opposed to Moses' adoptive father.
But in any case, the movie itself is worth watching.
It is quite good.
It was, I believe, the first DreamWorks major animation film, if I'm not mistaken.
And the music is Stephen Schwartz, the same guy who did Wicked.
And the rest of the music in the film is done by Hans Zimmer, who, of course, has gone on to have an enormous career doing things like Christopher Nolan's Batman movies and Interstellar.
Here is the first number in the musical, Deliver Us, which is the best number in the whole show.
Get on the air.
- - Alrighty, so go check so go check it out.
It's really a great number, and The Prince of Egypt is well worth watching.
Okay, time for a very quick thing that I hate.
So, Steven Spielberg says it is time for a woman to play Indiana Jones.
Ugh.
So here's what he said.
He said he knew he would risk fan fury by casting an actress in the role made famous by Harrison Ford, but believes it is time the Explorer took a different form.
Make Indiana Jones like a dog or something, I guess.
I mean, any different form will work, apparently.
In an exclusive interview, Spielberg nodded when asked if this new-look Jones could be female and added, we'd have to change the name from Jones to Joan, and there'd be nothing wrong with that.
He's been a vocal champion of the Time's Up campaign for gender equality in the movie industry.
And of course, he was married to the actress Kate Capshaw since 1991.
He met her in 1984.
She starred in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
She's an awful actress, by the way.
I mean, in Temple of Doom, my goodness.
That's a stinker.
But in any case, he says, my mom was strong.
She had a voice.
She had a very strong opinion.
Actually, I knew his mom.
She used to run a kosher restaurant on Pico Boulevard called Milk and Honey, which is quite good.
But he says that he thinks this will be Harrison Ford's last Indiana Jones movie.
It would have to be, because Harrison Ford is pushing 80 at this point.
He's really getting up there.
It's Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Actual Skull is where we are at this point.
But when you have Steven Spielberg saying that we're going to take iconic male characters and then shift them to female, I've said this before, I find it really stupid.
One of the things that's great about film, one of the things that's great about art, is that specificity Is universality.
So the more specific a character is, the better the art is, because in specific, we see what we have in common with other people.
When you draw a person really well, what you see is what I have in common with that person, and that's universal.
If you draw people broadly, so broadly that you can legitimately just take a woman and put in a man's role, then it's not good.
It's not, like, I think this is the reason that the movie Atomic Blonde didn't do well at the box office, is because, basically, Charlize Theron is playing a male role, but she's just a woman.
And I guess this is for female equality or some such, but it's okay to have a female action star who's a woman, right?
I mean, Ridley Scott did it with Aliens with Sigourney Weaver, and it works fine, because guess what?
Sigourney Weaver plays a woman, and she plays a woman like a woman.
And she's a very aggressive woman in that film, obviously.
But she plays it like a woman, and you couldn't put a man in that role and have them read the same lines.
The whole point of Indiana Jones is, Indiana Jones is a dude.
He's a dude's dude.
And this is the same sort of conversation we've had about a female James Bond.
There should not be a female James Bond.
James Bond is a character with a specific personality that is male in orientation.
And the same thing is true with regard to, with regard to Indiana Jones.
Don't take iconic characters and just make them women.
Build a new character.
If Fjord wants to build a new female character, go for it.
It's all you.
But it's irritating to suggest that women and men are exactly the same, and therefore you can just pop a woman in a man's role, and it's totally fine.
No problem whatsoever.
Okay.
We'll be back here tomorrow with all the latest updates.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
▲
Export Selection